Yes, 3 terms max

No, it&#039;s a bad idea

It&#039;s a good idea but it will never happen

Go to page

LE

Would limiting the number of terms an MP can sit in parliament improve the UKs political process?

Pro. It would mean the end of 'professional politicians'. Those people with no experience of the real world (E.G. Blair and Brown). It would reduce the likelyhood that civil servants will become beholden to particular politicians (e.g. chiefs of police) As the possibilities for being a career politician will be limited, those who take up being an MP will do so out of principle and will likely be experienced in life when they decide to try for election.

Con. The experience gained by the politician would be lost after his/her/its' two terms.

LE

Not only that every MP should have been living in his constituency for a period of 10 years before he can stand. No parachuting people into safe seats. If an MP does not think you are worth living with, what makes him worth voting for?

'A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gate is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.'
-- Cicero, 45 BC
A man who foretold the Labour Party for they are The Enemy Within.

LE

Not only that every MP should have been living in his constituency for a period of 10 years before he can stand. No parachuting people into safe seats. If an MP does not think you are worth living with, what makes him worth voting for?

War Hero

Would limiting the number of terms an MP can sit in parliament improve the UKs political process?

Pro. It would mean the end of 'professional politicians'. Those people with no experience of the real world (E.G. Blair and Brown). It would reduce the likelyhood that civil servants will become beholden to particular politicians (e.g. chiefs of police) As the possibilities for being a career politician will be limited, those who take up being an MP will do so out of principle and will likely be experienced in life when they decide to try for election.

Con. The experience gained by the politician would be lost after his/her/its' two terms.

Three terms maximum then 10 years doing completly unrelated work away from politics. If they choose to return, then they can spend the rest of their lives as politicians

Apologies if this has already been done, but this is a standard disclaimer for imbeciles who have nothing better to do than read threads all day long and point out when people repeat, misread or simply miss something that has already been mentioned (albeit briefly in text or via a link to an external site).

War Hero

At the moment MPs have no security of tenure (which is of course quite right and proper - they have to be elected by the people) however this means that they must prepare for the future when they may not be re-elected and so they all have a 'day job' sitting in the wings. This in turn can mean that they have interests that are at variance with what they are elected to do.

The other option would be professional politicians who are in for ever.

So there is no answer, like many other things in life, it is all a compromise.

There should however be a way of firing the bu99ers if they misbehave.

LE

Not sure that's a good idea - if they know their term in power is limited, they might be more inclined to feather their nests at speed.

Adam Smith - 1776 said:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

'A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gate is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.'
-- Cicero, 45 BC
A man who foretold the Labour Party for they are The Enemy Within.

Well, know they seek to feather their nests over a potential 20-odd year period. Imagine every incumbent politician attempting to achieve the same results in 10 or 12 - twice the greed, twice the cost.

Adam Smith - 1776 said:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

LE

At the moment MPs have no security of tenure (which is of course quite right and proper - they have to be elected by the people) however this means that they must prepare for the future when they may not be re-elected and so they all have a 'day job' sitting in the wings. This in turn can mean that they have interests that are at variance with what they are elected to do.

The other option would be professional politicians who are in for ever.

So there is no answer, like many other things in life, it is all a compromise.

There should however be a way of firing the bu99ers if they misbehave.

They are however guaranteed an index-linked pension, even if they're elected in a by-election and lose the seat at the next general election. And they have a salary which is at least three times the average wage, plus expenses and a second home.

If they can't live on that and make their own preparation for the future, how do they expect constituents on minimum wage to do so?

And this you can see is the bolt. The purpose of this
Is to open the breech, as you see. We can slide it
Rapidly backwards and forwards: we call this
Easing the spring. And rapidly backwards and forwards
The early bees are assaulting and fumbling the flowers:
They call it easing the Spring.
They call it easing the Spring: it is perfectly easy
If you have any strength in your thumb: like the bolt,
And the breech, and the cocking-piece, and the point of balance,
Which in our case we have not got; and the almond-blossom
Silent in all of the gardens and the bees going backwards and forwards,
For today we have naming of parts.

LE

fair point. I guess my thinking would be that having term limits would change the demographics for parliamentarians. many would be much older, say 50, experienced in life, and will already have established careers. So the change to being an MP would be out of principle, rather than the likes of brown who have no worldly experience and are simply in it for power. There will always be nest feathering, i just think term limits would have more benefits than costs.

LE

Not only that every MP should have been living in his constituency for a period of 10 years before he can stand. No parachuting people into safe seats. If an MP does not think you are worth living with, what makes him worth voting for?

War Hero

I fully agree with trying to rid the world of career politicians, but unfortunately this scheme gets rid of the (few) good policitians as well as the bad. Plus you would undoubtedly get them recycled through the Euro MP ranks and back again.

The flaw in this whole plan however, as with their pay and allowances, is that they would have to vote to agree it. And they are never going to collectively vote that they should only be able to stand for a limited time.
Or if they did they would no doubt vote that because they can only stand for 'X' terms then they should be renumerated at four times their current salary to compensate for their shortened career possibilities. And no doubt better pensions too.

Better to work harder to highlight the misdeeds of the scum (I'm talking to you Mr Mandelson) and properly punish the corrupt and incompenent with dismissal and vote for those worthy of the post. Easier said than done I know.

LE

You'd end up getting rid of some very good MPs. Since honest, hard working, dedicated MPs are getting increasingly thin on the ground on both sides of both houses, we might not want to chuck out this increasingly valuable resource if we don't have to.

I think you'd also end up with massive quangoes being created to provide highly paid jobs for former MPs to keep them in the manner to which they have become accustomed until the Parliamentary Pension kicks in.

Some better options to consider might be:-

Mandatory general election if the PM changes.

MPs sitting in Parliament should be more representative of the votes cast in an election. It's unacceptable that the 3% majority of the popular vote obtained by Labour last time round turned into 80% more seats.

Constituents can force a by election if their MP turns out to be cr@p and spends all his time in the Big Brother House or in his villa in Portugal writing books about Che Guevara.

A political fraud/corruption inspectorate that is not within the PMs chain of command. Having the cash-for-peerages investigation run by Sir Ian Blair at the Met and a former colleague of Cherie Blair at the CPS was a farce. I read today that the voting records for the Glenrothes by election have mysteriously disappeared following the unusually high turnout at the election. What's next? Stuffing ballot boxes at the general election to ensure the 'right' PM ends up in No 10?

ArRSe is the Hotel California - You can log-out any time you like, but you can never leave!

I'd question whether people have that much choice really about which individual they are represented by, however the second point is solid gold on the money true. Enough fiddling with the system. There have been too many duff tweaking of knobs, and spinning of dials.

Lets have a moratorium on changes to the politcal system for 10 years. And no new laws either. The only changes for the next decade that should be allowed are to repeal any rubbish laws made over the past 10 years that clearly arent working. A nice period of legal stability where the text books arent obsolete every six months and we can truly take stock of where we are and what actually needs changing. I am pretty sure we'd cope with what laws we have got (or had).

LE

Good point. Someone cleverer will correct me if I have the wrong PM, but I think it was Gladstone who said that we had enough laws and there was no need for any more. About 150 years ago.

Now ok we need new laws to keep up with new technology and new criminal deviousness, but that should do, surely.

And this you can see is the bolt. The purpose of this
Is to open the breech, as you see. We can slide it
Rapidly backwards and forwards: we call this
Easing the spring. And rapidly backwards and forwards
The early bees are assaulting and fumbling the flowers:
They call it easing the Spring.
They call it easing the Spring: it is perfectly easy
If you have any strength in your thumb: like the bolt,
And the breech, and the cocking-piece, and the point of balance,
Which in our case we have not got; and the almond-blossom
Silent in all of the gardens and the bees going backwards and forwards,
For today we have naming of parts.